**It is not certain** that all 39 MPs, minus the Speaker, can summon enough House-elected privilege to be sufficient to automatically, constitutionally waive** the right of an accused to **bypass** trial by jury. --- Yes?

This will take our legal system to a whole new level of corruption of the most frightening kind. Lawyers and their clients lobbying for the "right" judge to hear their case will take on a whole new meaning. The one thing our corrupt political ruling class cannot stand more than anything else is our Constitution and the protective rights it gives all Bahamians.

Too many senior judges, now in their twilight years, condescendingly think that they themselves are a superior choice to a jury trial by one's peers. They and other judges will naturally be biased in determining the outcomes of cases where a defendant is "of their own kind" in our society in terms of upbringing, literacy, education and overall social standing and stature. No one person should have the unconstitutional judgement power being proposed in this ridiculous legislation.

Bottomline: To many judges have allowed themselves to become lazy legal louts who really do think less educated persons at the lower end of our society's social spectrum are not capable of serving as a juror. Yet somehow they believe that very same type of person as a defendant would be capable of understanding the consequences of waiving their fundamental constitutional right to a trial by a jury of their peers.

Only lazy judges unwilling and/or unable to communicate with and properly advise and instruct jurors have a reason to fear the dumbed-down D- educated jurors that the failed education and social policies of the political ruling class are responsible for having created in the first place. Yes, it often involves more work on the judge’s part to educate jurors on important aspects of the applicable law but that added effort helps to preserve some of the most important principles behind of our judicial system.

It seems dumber than dumb Pinder and our corrupt PM Davis no longer consider the many D- educated in our society to be their peers when it comes to jury trials. These two demented imbeciles, and the lazy judges who wish to be elevated to God like status over the rest of us, are hell-bent in their efforts to do away with one of the most fundamental constitutional rights of the Bahamian people, a sacrosanct right that no Bahamian should ever be encouraged by his or her appointed lawyer or any judicial officer to somehow waive.

All right thinking Bahamians should be screaming for a better public education system and for their constitutional rights to be fully preserved and not in any way watered-down by the granting of unconstitutional choices that should never be allowed to exist.

All of the lazy and pompous judges really need to take a serious look at themselves in the mirror because the next notch down on this unconstitutional rope is to do away with our judicial system altogether and allow an authoritarian dictator to be the decider of who is innocent or guilty of whatever in our society.

There cannot be two standards of justice in our constitutional democracy and lady justice demands the power to pass judgement on any matter determining one's right to freedom not rest with a sole judge who may not bear any reasonable semblance to the defendants own true peers in our society.

> Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis noted that the United States, India, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the Netherlands are among various countries that let defendants choose a trial by judge alone.

The Tribune's reporter obviously failed to fact check this bogus assertion by PM Davis wherein he completely omits mentioning the most unusual and exceptionally narrow circumstances under which a jury trial does not occur in each of the countries named by him, e.g. military tribunals involving a defendant who is a member of the country's military. PM Davis also omits pointing out the other important safe guards these countries have put in place for any defendant required, by special circumstance, to undergo a trial by other than a jury of his or her own peers selected from society at large.

The one glaring truth about this bill, what was the rush?

Nobody will forget the Cornish witness's testimony btw. Move the trial to October. Nobody forget.

Trial by judge increases corruption and its implementation in Jamaica has been an unmitigated disaster. I don't care how smart one guy claims to be he can never be smarter then 7 or 12 people combined.

In trial by judge the judges seem to be in competition with prosecutors and tend to want to punish them for every perceived error, things that jurors can see through.
In 3 Major gang trials our so called CJ has let go man gangsters. Since then at least 20 have been eaten up by the streets and the Police.

Trial by Judge is a win for criminals

Your last sentence would be especially true in most criminal cases where a corrupt political official obtains his or her judgement from a sole judge of the same political persuasion. And you can bet these situations would more often than not arise by design.

The only way this could work is if the judge lives in a country far removed from ours and who only knows our laws inside and out and doesn't give a crap about who's who.
The rich and connected will be very happy with this - the innocent poor will NEVER get justice.

You are so right. It was difficult enough finding impartial jurors. Finding an impartial sole judge would make it exponentially more difficult to obtain an impartially and fairly determined judgement which is one of the key reasons why this new legislation is fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional.